&w=3840&q=100)
Bangladesh: Yunus govt forms panel to probe last three national elections Sheikh Hasina won
Muhammad Yunus, Chief Adviser of the Government of Bangladesh. File image/ Reuters
Amid increased crackdown on political opponents in the country, the interim government of Bangladesh, led by Muhammad Yunus, has established a new five-member commission to probe allegations of manipulation in national elections held under the Awami League in 2014, 2018, and 2024.
The new committee has thus replaced a previously formed panel.
According to a Cabinet Division gazette notification issued on Tuesday night (July 29), the commission's mandate includes reviewing claims of electoral irregularities and proposing reforms to ensure 'credible and participatory polls' in the future.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The notification highlighted that the elections in question faced 'widespread criticisms both at home and abroad' for alleged violations of constitutional obligations, particularly the requirement to govern through elected representatives.
To address these concerns, the commission has been tasked with recommending actionable measures to safeguard the integrity of future elections.
Led by retired High Court Justice Shamim Hasnain, who also chaired the dissolved committee, the new commission retains the same members: former Additional Secretary Shamim Al Mamun, Dhaka University law faculty Associate Professor Kazi Mahfuzul Haque Supan, Advocate Barrister Tajrian Akram Hossain of the Dhaka District and Sessions Judge Court, and election expert Dr. Md Abdul Alim.
The scope of the commission's work remains unchanged, but the deadline for submitting its report has been extended by one month, from September 30 to October 31.
Crackdown on political dissent in Bangladesh under Yunus
Meanwhile, concerns about democratic freedoms have surfaced.
In May, Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that recent legislative moves by Bangladesh's interim government risk undermining fundamental rights.
The organisation criticised the government for attempting to 'suppress the rights' of supporters of the deposed Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina.
On May 12, the interim government imposed a 'temporary' ban on the Awami League, leveraging new powers under a controversial amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
HRW noted that this ban, which will remain in place until party leaders face trial for alleged abuses during their 15-year rule, effectively proscribes the party and could last for years.
Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at HRW, stated, 'Sheikh Hasina's government abused legal powers to silence political opponents, but using similar methods against the supporters of her Awami League party would also violate those same fundamental freedoms.'
The New York-based rights group expressed concern that, rather than fulfilling its pledge to reform the criminal justice system and ensure accountability, the interim government's actions may further erode democratic principles in Bangladesh.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
India rejects UK report alleging ‘transnational repression'
India Friday categorically rejected as 'baseless' a British parliamentary report that named it among countries engaged in 'transnational repression' in the UK. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said the allegations stemmed from 'unverified' and 'dubious sources' predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals. 'We have seen the references to India in the report and categorically reject these baseless allegations,' said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. 'These claims stem from unverified and dubious sources, predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals with a clear, documented history of anti-India hostility,' he said. Jaiswal said the 'deliberate reliance on discredited sources calls into question the credibility of the report itself'. The report made by the British Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights listed India along with China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates as countries allegedly engaging in 'transnational repression' in the UK. The report titled 'Transnational repression in the UK' was made public on July 30. Some of the details related to India cited in the report were provided by Sikhs for Justice, a pro-Khalistan organisation banned in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and other UK-based Sikh groups.
Mint
34 minutes ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
